Did Tom DeLay Err On The Side Of Death?
Joe Gandelman
Yet another problem for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay...this one is a biggie, a question raised about his credibility on the Terri Schiavo case.
It seems the Los Angeles Times did a little research and found out that Rep. DeLay's father had been bedridden some years ago and the family had to decide what to do — so they pulled the plug. But perhaps in those days he was merely a part of the Culture of Death:
CANYON LAKE, Texas — A family tragedy unfolding in a Texas hospital during the fall of 1988 was a private ordeal — without judges, emergency sessions of Congress or the raging debate outside Terri Schiavo's Florida hospice.This is a long piece, but here are some key sections for your perusal:The patient then was a 65-year-old drilling contractor, badly injured in a freak accident at his home. Among the family standing vigil at Brooke Army Medical Center was a grieving junior congressman — U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
More than 16 years ago, far from the political passions that have defined the Schiavo controversy, the DeLay family endured its own wrenching end-of-life crisis. The man in a coma, kept alive by intravenous lines and a ventilator, was DeLay's father, Charles Ray DeLay.So it was a typically wrenching case. More:Then, freshly re-elected to a third term in the House, DeLay waited all but helpless for the verdict of doctors.
Today, as House Majority Leader, DeLay has teamed with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to champion political intervention the Schaivo case. He pushed emergency legislation through congress to shift the legal case from Florida state courts to the federal judiciary.But surely Tom DeLay and his relatives agonized over this decision, debated it, talked about the culture of life, waiting until the very last minute, ensuring that their loved one was kept alive long enough to exhaust all possibilities. NOT:And he is among the strongest advocates of keeping the woman, who doctors say has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, connected to her feeding tube. DeLay has denounced Schiavo's husband, as well as judges, for committing what he calls "an act of barbarism" in removing the tube.
In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman quietly joined the sad family consensus to let his father die.
"There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old mother, recalled in an interview last week. "There was no way he (Charles) wanted to live like that. Tom knew, we all knew, his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way."
I'm confused. Isn't this the rationale we're hearing in the Terri Schiavo case that DeLay is discounting? More:
Doctors advised that he would "basically be a vegetable," said the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay.Republicans in Congress would be wise to put a chart like that next to Mr. DeLay's political future, but that's another issue for another time. Right now let's give Mr. Delay the benefit of the doubt: perhaps he has changed his views due to reading, reflection, a genuine religious experience, an appreciation for spiritual values that comes with maturity or getting bad press due to ethics investigations — or a combination of some of these.When the man's kidneys failed, the DeLay family decided against connecting him to a dialysis machine. "Extraordinary measures to prolong life were not initiated," said his medical report, citing "agreement with the family's wishes." His bedside chart carried the instruction: "Do Not Resuscitate."
Or maybe just one of them.
Delay's spokespeople commented for the LAT piece, but seem to have kept their rebuttal to an absolute minimum:
"The situation faced by the congressman's family was entirely different than Terri Schiavo's," said a spokesman for DeLay, who declined requests for an interview.There's much more...but read it all yourself so you can make your own decision. And we're certain peoples' conclusions over this will be grounded in their beliefs about this case."The only thing keeping her alive is the food and water we all need to survive. His father was on a ventilator and other machines to sustain him," said Dan Allen, DeLay's news aide.
There were also these similarities: Both stricken patients were severely brain damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without continuing medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared life sustained by machine. And neither left a living will.
This previously unpublished account of the majority leader's personal brush with life-ending decisions was assembled from court files, medical records and interviews with family members.
But one thing seems clear: Mr. DeLay's present stance as he has been under political pressure to do something about this case has been a tad diferent than it was when his own family faced the situation and there were no political pressures on them.
Consistency is not exactly the adjective that can be applied here...
UPDATE: The New York Times offers this report about how he has now quietly stepped out of the spotlight. From my private emails, some suggest he deserves a Profile In Courage for ignoring political opposition or even public resistance. But this story suggests that may just have to wait awhile...
Related Posts (on one page):
- Stinky DeLay
- Did Tom DeLay Err On The Side Of Death?
Was DeLay's father in worse shape? Yup. Was there a dispute within the DeLay family? None reported. Did they drag the courts into their situation? Nope.
Certainly some of those facts are relevant.
But is there a good political point to be made by beating some guy with the corpse of his dead father?
Yup. Full speed ahead!
There happens to be clear dispute in Terri's case where family members dispute the claim she wanted to die and are willing to keep her alive as they believe she would want to be kept alive.
But anything to score political points, right?
1) The man was on a ventilator, not just a feeding tube. That's clearly "life support" and more than Terri needs.
2) There is no indication that the family disputed what DeLay's father wanted. In Terri's case, practically EVERYONE who knew her except her in-name-only "husband" Michael says she would have erred on the side of life.
There is not a SHRED of inconsistency here.
Talk about political grandstanding? This is the worst I've seen. Whether you like DeLay or not, it is the hight of intellectual and emotional dishonesty on the part of the L.A. Times to equate these cases. What a shameful bunch of partisan hacks.
I guess I'll pile on, too; this is a disgusting cheap shot; the man's kidneys were failing, he was on a ventilator...and there was no dispute in the family about what to do....
The 'disagreement' in the family means a lot to me. I have a Living Will, a Medical Power of Attorney, and a DNR. Even with all 3 of these papers executed while I was in sound mind and body, some members of my family have made it clear they will fight my husband as long as possible to prevent the orders being enforced. So, you can all take the 'the family agreed' argument and shove it. I've made myself clear, and still the law permits extended family from fighting my husband and my own wishes on file. What's worse? The fact a woman stated one thing, and her parents want another (what "everyone" are you talking about Dean? I've seen her mom and a childhood friend, no-one else, willing to go on record in court).
This has everything to do with this case. No one who would wish one thing for their family and something very different on another should be having anything to do with this case, let alone political grandstanding in Washington to defeat the court system and try to run an endzone around the checks-and-balances system of government we have here in the US. When a politican is using the death of a woman as his own political pawn get angry with the politician, not the people that show what he's like in public and behind closed doors.
Joe, thank you for posting this. Even if everyone else is unable to see the link.
I don't believe they've all been allowed to stand up in court--fact-finding on any of this ended long ago.
I don't see anyone "piling on" Joe. Just on the Los Angeles Times for a dirty trick. Which is all this is. There is absolutely no allegation in the case of DeLay that anyone in the family disagreed, and it's clear that the man's condition was worse. This is in no way a fair comparison; this is a case where what is needed to keep this young woman alive is far less, where some medical hope is still being held out, and where multiple people who would know don't just say they disagree with Michael but say he's lying.
These two situations are not comparable, no matter whose side you come down on.
My mother had a massive cerebral hemorrhage 19 years ago - she had to be on a ventilator to live - she was in a coma and once the neurosurgeon explained that she was brain dead, our family had the ventilator turned off - and she breathed on her own for a day until she slipped away - please note - we would have never, ever removed the feeding tube. Mom's brain damage was complete - she never regained consciousness.
The circumstances for Terri are completely different. There is no comparison.
The LA Times, which does not have time to think things through, seems to have missed the point.
Dropping the "not" is a very common typo ...
I also don't vouch for my spelling of the plural noun form of subtle.
On the one hand we have a man over 80, on a respirator, unconscious, with no medical authorities suggesting any hopeful prognosis, with no one in his family in disagreement as to what his wishes would be.
On the other hand we have a woman, only age 40 or so, not in need of a respirator or anything except food and water, who has not recieved significant therapy in something like a decade even though new methods have been developed since then, with medical doctors--yes in the minority, but still real enough--in dispute about the potential for treatment, and not just both parents but siblings and friends and even one nurse who's treated her saying that her "husband"--who long ago moved on to another woman--is lying.
It is the height of nastiness to suggest that if you have EVER thought someone should be taken off of life support, you must think THIS PERSON should be.
So if I've EVER supported taking ANYONE off of life support for ANY REASON, I'm a hypocrite if I've got problems with THIS CASE? Please. That doesn't even pass the smell test.
As for those of you estranged from your own religious extremist families: you know what? You're projecting that onto Terri's family and friends. Should you? Do you know so much about this case that you're positive Michael is a saint and these people are all just drooling religious fruitcakes? Come off it.
The RCC figures VERY, VERY heavily in this case Dean. For an independent observer of religion, an outsider if you will...They have a Fransiscan Monk for a spokesman, an anti-abortion advocate, they keep screaming 'what about her faith'. Religion is very deeply embeded in this. Admit it. Also admit no one is calling them fruitcakes.
Get off the 'other woman' crap. If you mention it again I will post an entire lenghty post of just how many men are 'happily married' that have mistresses and illegitimate children. Do you really want to drag that in here?
Well they're not exclusive you know.
Mr. Gandelman, maybe you should go reread this post. That view that "gets very little publicity and is quite compelling" makes a lot of sense to me.
And the "other woman" is his WIFE for God's sake, they live together and have children together. This isn't about adultery, it's about whether he's really the only person qualified to claim to be her family when he's so clarly and obviously moved on.
I agree with what Martin said above: where's the footage of Mr. DeLay's father with eyes wide open, watching the world, laughing, responding to people, and getting by without ventilator or dialysis? Where are the doctor's saying, "We could try this to bring him back?"
There are definite situations where I would support a "pull the plug" scenario. Does that make me a hypocrite if I don't say "pull the plug" in EVERY scenario?
Emerson forgot to include the L.A. Times in his list.
Yes, but even then Dean didn't/couldn't lock him in a kennel and starve him to death. The side that wants Terri to live is not equating her with a dog. They are saying she's greater than a dog, but being treated as less than one.
BK
And yeah, there are lots of good reasons to dislike Tom DeLay, but this isn't one of them. These two cases aren't very much alike, and I think he clearly did the right thing by his father.
But we don't have that with Terri, do we?
So, "pull the tube" advocates, at what point of marital betrayal do you think it's appropriate to allow somebody else to initiate divorce proceedings against an incapacitated woman's husband? Who should be permitted that third party role? Terri Schiavo's almost dead, probably will be dead before the week is out. It would be a shame if some good legislative change didn't come out of her suffering.
Tom Delay is the House Majority Leader, not a judge in the Schiavo case.
So Mr. Gandelman, after this story has been completely ripped to shreds as a partisan case of apples and oranges, you still believe that it suggests anything about Speaker DeLay? Without addressing even one of the criticisms of the story?
All this story suggests is that the L.A. Times hasn't changed their tactics one iota since the Gubernatorial Recall election. Slime, slime, and more slime, and facts are just inconveniences to be ignored.
Well Jim I've done a lot of reading on this and I haven't found much there besides Michael's word there myself. And it's seemed to me that this judge (it really does all come down to one Florida judge) has been unusually stubborn and unwilling to look at new evidence in this case.
Whatever. It's almost over. We can be thankful for that.
Jeff: For the record, if Rhianna had three separate legal papers executed specifying her wishes, and something bad and high-profile happened to her, I'd be all for respecting those wishes no matter what her family said. I'd also consider legislative action to invalidate those wishes to be very clearly inappropriate.
Yeah, I feel exactly the same way.
If you're going to quote numbers, be intellectually honest when you do so. If not, there will be those that will confront you (like me).
If you've got evidence to the contrary, share it. Otherwise, your claim that "60 judges have heard this case" is simply false. They've made sure the first judge didn't violate any rules--nothing more.
In fact, the federal judge only ruled on whether he thought the family might win the case if it were heard. The entire federal line of appeals was based on whether he had followed procedure in that decision.
None of the federal courts have "heard" the case.
As well, the Supreme Court rejection means that the court did not hear or decide on the issues of the case. They may do so because they agree with a lower court decision or because they do not feel the issues are sufficient enough for them to be involved, or - as is more likely the case here - the particular case is not precedential and deals only with one person.
So by your own answer, you admit more than one judge has heard SOME if not ALL the 'facts'. I mention is as 'facts' do to the "he put her in this condition" that has NO PROOF provided.
So, what are you arguing exactly Dean? That it is
It's like cake Dean, one can't have it and eat it too.
And, I do notice you dropped the 'his wife' crap, but have yet to quantify this is because you have NO LEGAL PAPERS claiming she has ever been such. Why is that?
Actually, the fact that he's living with her and has already had two children with her (who, I assume, go by the name Schiavo) would seem to make them common law husband and wife, which means that he's a practicing bigamist, regardless of the niceties about caring for his wife.
1. Florida doesn't recognize common-law marriage;
2. Even if it did, there's no such thing as "common law bigamy." Adultery, yes--but not common law bigamy.
Bryan, do you want a laundry list of powerful people with open adultery? Or shall we drop the pretense to morality now?
I'm going to repeat myself for you one more time:
1) The claim that 60 judges has reviewed the facts of this case is simply false. Or, at best, a half-truth. Most of them have reviewed procedure, not fact, and some facts have never even been examined by any court.
That's just the way it is.
2) As I have said already, it's pretty clear to me that Michael is Terri's husband IN NAME ONLY, as a matter of LEGAL TECHNICALITY ONLY. I completely stand by that. His real wife and family these days is the woman he's living with.
Now I've had enough of this--stop injecting your own personal issues with your own family into this case. And stop insulting me just for disagreeing with you.